Shutter life expectancy
Oct 29, 2018 06:55:03 #
eadler wrote:
I would would view a shutter wearing out not as a negative but rather a shopping opportunity. You really do want that new camera with the latest features don't you?
Exactly! It shows that you're really using your camera, and it's time to get a nice new one.
Oct 29, 2018 14:34:05 #
"Electronic shutter" is another way of saying "shutterless".
There are actual solid-state optical shutters (LCD based) products,
but they aren't fast enough for user in cameras.
Typical low-end digital cameras are shutterless. Data is transferred
from the sensor either all at once ("global shutter") or sequentially
("rolling shutter"). The problem is: there is a lot of data in a sensor,
and it has to go somewhere. There is no bus wide enough or fast enough
to move it to storage (SD card or whatever) quickly enough.
On a "global shutter" sensor, room is made on the sensor for the data.
In effect, half of the sensor is given over to storage. This is reasonably
fast, but reduces resolution considerably. It also creates noise and heat
and reduces dynamic range.
On a "rolling shutter" sensor, the image is scanned line by line--rather
like a DSLR focal plane shutter at a higher speed -- except that rolling
shutters aren't as fast. So you get "artifacts" in your image whenever
you photograph something that is moving. DSLRs will also create
shutter artifacts, but only if you photograph something that is moving
fast relative to the shutter speed, such as a aircraft propeller or fan blade.
Electronric "shutters" don't wear out, but they can get hot. Heat can be a big
problem in digital cameras due to lack ventilation. There is no where for
the heat to go. Heat increases the amount of noise in the sensor and reduces
the life of many components and materials (e.g., some plastics). Worst of
all, heat greatly reduces the life of lubricants on any moving parts.
So you really can't win with shutterless cameras. None will come
anywhere near the performance of your DSLR. That's why most
MILCs have mechanical focal plane shutters, same as a DSLR.
If technology could produce a truly satisfactory electronic
shutter, MILCs could be made much simpler, smaller, lighter
and cheaper. As things stand, there is no real reason to go to
mirrorless: it cannot do anything the DSLR can't do -- and
electronic viewfinders are a big drawback--reducing battery
life, introducing lag and showing you less dynamic range
than your sensor sees.
EVFs may also improve in the future. But currently LCD
with LED illuminator is the only game in town, and the
dynamic range sucks. LCD television address this problem
by using "dynamic range" -- for all dark scenes, the illuminator
dims down. But this doesn't change the amount of contrast
you can see at one time, which ain't much.
MILCs are not a new technology---they've been around for years.
Even digital rangefinder cameras have been made. If you find
yourself using mirror lock-up all the time, that might be a reason
to switch to one. But IMHO, one shouldn't go to a new product
unless it performs better than the product one is using.
People have been trying to invent a display technology with
more dynamic range than LCD for decades. Actually, there
are a couple old ones: the CRT and the plasma display. Neither
is suitable for EVFs, but both were much better for TV sets--
but consumers opted for LCD/LED and OLED (slightly
better blacks) anyway.
Consumers are fundamentally irrational. They'll buy a product
because it is sexy or new or heavily advertised--not because it works
better. Tech products are the worse because the consumer
really has no idea what's inside the box---he has to take somebody's
word for it.
The best rule for the smart consumer is to wait until a new technology
comes along that is clearly superior, adn then wait until the products
get solid and offer clear benefits over the product he is using. Don't
be an "early adopter": it's painful on the "bleeding edge".
Sony claims to have a better global "shutter" sensor, but is only selling it
to industrial applications--not putting it in their MILCs. That suggests
it has serious drawbacks and is "not yet ready for prime time". Past
experience shows that many industrial parts never get good enough,
cheap enough or compact enough for consumer cameras.
What cameras really need is a solid-state focal-plane shutter, not a even
more complex and expensive sensor that reduces resolution, increases noise
or creates "artifacts". But that would require a major breakthrough or new
technology, not just incremental enhancements of existing technology.
Camera industry, please give us something that is a clear improvement over
the focal plane mechanical shutter. We don't need another "upgrade to
lower performance."
There are actual solid-state optical shutters (LCD based) products,
but they aren't fast enough for user in cameras.
Typical low-end digital cameras are shutterless. Data is transferred
from the sensor either all at once ("global shutter") or sequentially
("rolling shutter"). The problem is: there is a lot of data in a sensor,
and it has to go somewhere. There is no bus wide enough or fast enough
to move it to storage (SD card or whatever) quickly enough.
On a "global shutter" sensor, room is made on the sensor for the data.
In effect, half of the sensor is given over to storage. This is reasonably
fast, but reduces resolution considerably. It also creates noise and heat
and reduces dynamic range.
On a "rolling shutter" sensor, the image is scanned line by line--rather
like a DSLR focal plane shutter at a higher speed -- except that rolling
shutters aren't as fast. So you get "artifacts" in your image whenever
you photograph something that is moving. DSLRs will also create
shutter artifacts, but only if you photograph something that is moving
fast relative to the shutter speed, such as a aircraft propeller or fan blade.
Electronric "shutters" don't wear out, but they can get hot. Heat can be a big
problem in digital cameras due to lack ventilation. There is no where for
the heat to go. Heat increases the amount of noise in the sensor and reduces
the life of many components and materials (e.g., some plastics). Worst of
all, heat greatly reduces the life of lubricants on any moving parts.
So you really can't win with shutterless cameras. None will come
anywhere near the performance of your DSLR. That's why most
MILCs have mechanical focal plane shutters, same as a DSLR.
If technology could produce a truly satisfactory electronic
shutter, MILCs could be made much simpler, smaller, lighter
and cheaper. As things stand, there is no real reason to go to
mirrorless: it cannot do anything the DSLR can't do -- and
electronic viewfinders are a big drawback--reducing battery
life, introducing lag and showing you less dynamic range
than your sensor sees.
EVFs may also improve in the future. But currently LCD
with LED illuminator is the only game in town, and the
dynamic range sucks. LCD television address this problem
by using "dynamic range" -- for all dark scenes, the illuminator
dims down. But this doesn't change the amount of contrast
you can see at one time, which ain't much.
MILCs are not a new technology---they've been around for years.
Even digital rangefinder cameras have been made. If you find
yourself using mirror lock-up all the time, that might be a reason
to switch to one. But IMHO, one shouldn't go to a new product
unless it performs better than the product one is using.
People have been trying to invent a display technology with
more dynamic range than LCD for decades. Actually, there
are a couple old ones: the CRT and the plasma display. Neither
is suitable for EVFs, but both were much better for TV sets--
but consumers opted for LCD/LED and OLED (slightly
better blacks) anyway.
Consumers are fundamentally irrational. They'll buy a product
because it is sexy or new or heavily advertised--not because it works
better. Tech products are the worse because the consumer
really has no idea what's inside the box---he has to take somebody's
word for it.
The best rule for the smart consumer is to wait until a new technology
comes along that is clearly superior, adn then wait until the products
get solid and offer clear benefits over the product he is using. Don't
be an "early adopter": it's painful on the "bleeding edge".
Sony claims to have a better global "shutter" sensor, but is only selling it
to industrial applications--not putting it in their MILCs. That suggests
it has serious drawbacks and is "not yet ready for prime time". Past
experience shows that many industrial parts never get good enough,
cheap enough or compact enough for consumer cameras.
What cameras really need is a solid-state focal-plane shutter, not a even
more complex and expensive sensor that reduces resolution, increases noise
or creates "artifacts". But that would require a major breakthrough or new
technology, not just incremental enhancements of existing technology.
Camera industry, please give us something that is a clear improvement over
the focal plane mechanical shutter. We don't need another "upgrade to
lower performance."
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.